Check this CAC grading comparison

When will CACG catch up to PCGS / NGC or for that matter ICG in number of slabs on eBay?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Really depends on how many realize that it will only be the high end coins that cross grade. The ones that they can't change the grade with out having a lawsuit that could bankrupt them.

 

Well of course they’re cheating! What do you think market grading is? It gives it to them on a silver platter, touchy-feely. Is it a pretty boy? Hell yeah it is, every bit! AU58 becomes MS64, just like that! Eye appeal, whose eyeballs determine that? Oh, but we’ve standards! Go on. Their market, there’s the only standard. Market grading is bullshit. “Complicated,” what are you, dreaming? What’s rather complicated is guessing what they think is pretty.

I agree with JA, they’re all over the place by now. But don’t tell me market grading is complicated. In PCGS’s own words, it’s “[a] numerical grade that matches the grade at which a particular coin generally is traded in the marketplace. The grading standard used by PCGS.” So tracking the market they think a beautiful AU58 could trade at MS64, guess what, it’s MS64. A scratch on an SVDB gets a pass. Oh, but you do it different. Well good for you. So do I. So does everyone, here. It’s what their market will shell out for, there’s the definition. And they’ve their finger on the pulse.

 

I admittedly don't know a ton about grading, especially when it comes to TPGs but whenever I've tried to grade my own coins, for my own use, I've used resources that give specific tangible metrics to go by. Full lines in wheat ears. or Lincoln's cheek bone worn but visible, etc etc.

The "pretty" factor should almost be a SEPERATE "grade" maybe that's complicating things but then you'd be able to say something like MS62 with A+ toning, or some such BS.

The waters are muddied at this point I think, unless the TPGs get back to basics and leave the market out of it, it's likely to remain that way.

But what do I know......not alot

 

eddiespin, posted: "Well of course they’re cheating! [Who exactly is cheating? If everyone except you believes it is OK to win a pot from you using five aces, is that cheating?] What do you think market grading is? [I think market grading is a sham; however, a "market grader" just gave me his definition: "What the coin is worth when properly graded to commercial market standards"]. It gives it to them on a silver platter, touchy-feely. Is it a pretty boy? Hell yeah it is, every bit! AU58 becomes MS64, just like that! Eye appeal, whose eyeballs determine that? [Easy, anyone who looks at the coin - even you!] Oh, but we’ve standards! Go on. Their market, there’s the only standard. [Yep, dem's what buys and sells da coins makes da market] Market grading is bullshit. “Complicated,” what are you, dreaming? [No, I'm not dreaming. Commercial grading is complicated because you must take the coin's value into consideration. I'm guessing out of ignorance that you are unaware that grades become more conservative at the points where prices jump. Do you have any idea what the actual TPGS grade would be assigned to a DMPL 1901 Morgan dollar that looked like an MS-65 DMPL 80-S? I don't either because that coin may not exist. But if one shows up the guys you are calling cheaters would know how to grade it.] What’s rather complicated is guessing what they think is pretty. [Actually eddiespin, acquiring a taste for attractiveness and learning what is attractive to the majority of knowledgeably collectors is quite easy with a little study UNLESS a person is color blind.]

I agree with JA, they’re all over the place by now. [Yep, after many millions of coins graded over the past fifty years of changing market conditions and "standards" they are all over the place. I've told the story of TPGS Proof Franklins I bought in the late 80's for my teaching set going up three grades from back then SO FAR.] But don’t tell me market grading is complicated. In PCGS’s own words, it’s “[a] numerical grade that matches the grade at which a particular coin generally is traded in the marketplace. The grading standard used by PCGS.” So tracking the market they think a beautiful AU58 could trade at MS64, guess what, it’s MS64. A scratch on an SVDB gets a pass. Oh, but you do it different. Well good for you. So do I. So does everyone, here. [Gotcha! That's because market grading is COMPLICATED! We are not in the market so have no clue to actual coin prices except what we can surmise from price guides.] It’s what their market will shell out for, there’s the definition. And they’ve their finger on the pulse."

 

If you go back to the 2008 interview with Maurice Rosen, JA says that CAC stickers (which as we all know command a premium) are for the "A" and "B" coins in a series. It's the "C" coins which were dominating dealer inventories and retail sales and the reason why CAC was established.

As for "D" and "F" coins, they were considered misgraded and THOSE were the ones that deserved to be downgraded 1 (or more) grades.

Now CACG.....even if a coin is a "C" it will go into the CACG holder as per JA both in 2008 and today because it IS properly graded for the grade assigned. But based on what many people are paying, either they are discerning that the underlying coin is an "A" or a "B" and worthy of a premium...or....they are just paying a premium for the holder even if it has a "C" coin in it.

I could be wrong, but it appears that CACG is trying to lean a bit more back to technical grading.

 

Ay, and there's the rub. If that's true, then collectors with PCGS/NGC beaned coins getting automatic crossovers to CACG are getting hosed because now there are "C" coins that did not merit a bean getting the benefit of the supposition that CACG coins represent the stricter/better judgement that previously distinguished the beaned coins from the C coins.

If that's true, then if a collector is to any extent relying on the better judgement and experience of CACG to protect and/or guide them, then that trust might be misplaced. It's all very well and good to say "buy the coin not the holder" but not everyone brings a lifetime of coin grading experience not to mention talent to the table.

Now I, for one, do not at this point believe that CACG is going to be slabbing any (one hesitates to speak in absolutes) C coins but I would be happy to be corrected with facts. And I don't think a JA comment from 2008 is necessary applicable to the 2023 CACG policies.

 

Personally I'm all for technical grading, it makes the most sense to me.

 

Now that everyone is agreed with the TPGs' use of variable 'standards', is it too much to ask people to go that extra step and learn to grade properly? Sure it takes a bit of time, effort and mental exercise, but the benefits are huge, not least the ability to buy any coin, raw or slabbed based on objective reasoning, and not be constrained to a pool of third party opinions, which as the previous posts have shown is subjective and by extension arbitrary on many an occasion.

The argument about overpaying for a coin (realistically because the coin dog is being wagged by the label tail) is mainly relevant if a quick turnaround is expected. Hold a coin for 10 or 20 years and inflation will likely have caught up with a previously overpriced/overgraded coin (whatever that means given the acknowledged subjectivity). If you are collecting for pleasure long term, buy what appeals. i.e. what's acceptable to you. If people stopped commoditising coins and treated them as objects of art, much of the above discussion would melt away. The only people who should be commoditising coins are the banks, who will give you 100 cents for a dollar note.

 

Back when NGC and PCGS first started grading nice AU-58s as MS-62, there was a reason for doing that, according to the market.

There are some of us who think that a nice AU-58 is worth as much or more than and ugly, technical grade MS-60 or 61. When I was buying early U.S. type coins, I routinely paid low Mint State prices for really nice AU-58 coins. To me they are more attractive. Here are a few examples.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't JA a co-founder of both PCGS and NGC? Then why wouldn't we expect that CACG will eventually go down the same road as the others?

 

Good to hear they came to their senses. For a while (before CACG was actually started) it appeared that "C" coins would be downgraded also. A bunch of us hit the roof as a 64 "C" is still a 64 and not a 63+!

 

I agree that with the more valuable early US coinage, the practice of grading AU coins as mint state was "value" based, but they have also made allowances for friction not caused by circulation, specifically roll friction, most commonly found on coins like SLQs and Saints. Here is an example.




These market grading allowances drive guys like Doug who believe that "wear is wear" into a tizzy.

 

Yup, they are like the person buying something NEW and paying a PREMIUM (in terms of costs of re-grading and loss of value to their coin) just for the privilege of being in a CACG holder.

No different than buying a brand-new car on Day 1 -- you pay for scarcity. But as CACG ramps up and supply increases, the scarcity value of the CACG holder will fall and it'll depend on the coin for the premium (if any).

Yup, totally agree.

I think they ARE, Pub.

An MS-65 "C" coin is still an MS-65 coin. It's not going to go into an MS-64 holder with a CAC bean/sticker. It's going into the CACG holder from what I read NOW (and also in 2008) and JA and CACG have not said anything about all CACG holdered coins being "A" or "B" for the grade.

 

I'll bet that 99.8% of the folks who throw the word "technical grading" around don't understand what the true, original, technical grading was and that includes the ANA's graders in CO who chose that word for the way they graded coins decades ago at the second coin grading service!

 

Or a 63 with a CAC bean.

 

You're right and I'm using the term technical not to describe specifically a "type" of grading but just a generalization of using objective markers and techniques to provide some sort of accepted and accurate form of grading.

I'll be the first to admit my ignorance on grading, just sharing my thoughts

 

I would like to thank Those who have participated and hopefully will continue to do so.

However, as important as this area in numismatics and each collector's goals,I am afraid it will eventually peter out. I think we should ask to have a separate forum formed by admin specifically on Grading discussions. Insider ( when he isn't overly "excited" is a great teacher and source) I respect him highly in his profession. We could ask that like the old ancients forum to only be on Grading ( commercial and individual).

IMO, Jim

 

Hear,Hear......

 

This is the type of coin that can be routinely graded correctly MS one day and AU the next. A true "liner." There is an easily determined difference between the loss of original surface from the micro movement taking place in a roll during pressure compaction and the "cabinet friction" nomenclature introduced commercially long ago to overlook or minimize the undesirability of friction wear from circulation and mishandling. Unfortunately, most don't have the tools or type of lighting needed to make this determination with an acceptable degree of accuracy.

One old timer told me that when a coin has virtually no marks or hairlines, he views the obvious friction wear as roll rub or cabinet friction. I think the market still would accept that if it had not decided to grade AU's low Mint State to eliminate the need to make any specific and accurate determination. I think most of you have heard that with most coins there is little price difference in the low MS grades.